[Oceania-Board] resolving resolutions

[John Bryant]

It should be based on those who vote, but all board members should have the
opportunity to vote (says 7 days in draft ToR v2).

If you schedule a meeting for 5 pm, and 5 members show up at 4:45, you
don't start the meeting early just because you have enough people to make
quorum.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 15:54, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey John
>
> I think we have some ambiguity about whether or not voting on these kinds
> of motions is based on those who vote, or of all board members?
>
> In the constitution, s 95 says 'a quorum for _board meetings_'... is half
> or half rounded up in the case of odd numbers.
>
> I think that the Board can govern appropriately in this case, and if we
> call these decisions essentially a mini-board meeting, which is suggested
> by s 91 as you say, then we could say that a quorum is those participating.
> In the case above 5 of 8 participated, so there was a quorum, in that
> sense. And out of the quorum, the motion was carried with 4 in agreement
> and 1 against.
>
> I agree that we shouldn't just kick this down the road. I'm really not
> very interested in debating constantly, and I'd prefer to just move forward.
>
> So my view is that the motion to change the membership policy IS changed.
>
> Do we have any dissenters or disagreement on my interpretation above?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 18:30, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chiming in as a concerned member of the community. I see some unresolved
>> problems:
>>
>>    - This motion was closed before some directors had a chance to
>>    participate, without following due process. Now what? It's left unclear
>>    whether this motion has actually passed.
>>    - Supposing the motion is considered to have been carried, it's now
>>    suggested that it's not binding, and is handed off to the incoming board
>>    for discussion and action, "*if actual changes are need to the ToR*".
>>    Surely, if the explicit purpose of the motion is to change the Membership
>>    Policy, and it passes, then the next action is to actually change the
>>    Membership Policy?
>>
>> Very confusing. What is the outcome? Is the Membership Policy changed or
>> not?
>>
>> (Incidentally - in February, the board agreed to use Loomio for decisions
>> outside of board meetings [1], to bring much needed clarity & transparency
>> to decision making. This seems well supported by the constitution (s 91)
>> and these decisions should be considered binding.)
>>
>> [1]
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYAw_zmNEqajzxO1PQwPnpt539CXodby/view
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 16:17, Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I really want to press upon everybody that we are volunteers, we should
>>> not have to be an instantly reactive board (responsive yes, but that is a
>>> different approach), and we should avoid prioritising immediate convenience
>>> (for some) over good practice.
>>>
>>> In the end the ToR change was not needed, and the vote is questionable.
>>> I think it is reasonable to expect that for online votes we need majority
>>> of all board members, and also to expect a poll summary to go out via this
>>> list. I think using loomio to poll for everything (eg board meetings) is
>>> unwieldy.
>>>
>>> I'm super happy that the MwG could get through all the new memberships!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania-Board mailing list
>>> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania-Board mailing list
>> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>>
>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20201115/c31c1650/attachment-0001.html>